Post-Heller Litigation Summary Appendix: Ongoing Second Amendment Civil Litigation
Updated 9/1/12
The chart below lists significant pending federal and state civil cases involving Second Amendment challenges to federal, state, and local firearms laws and
practices. The cases are organized in categories based on the types of laws being challenged. Please note that suits challenging laws in more than one category
appear under one category only in the chart below.
Case Name/Number

Challenged
Jurisdiction

Nature of Second Amendment Challenge

Status of Litigation

Licensing and Registration

Bauer v. Harris
No. 11-01440

Ezell v. City of
Chicago
No. 10-5135

Heller v. District of
Columbia (“Heller II”)
No. 10-7036
No. 08-1289

California

Chicago, IL

Washington,
DC

Challenging state law that permits the
California Department of Justice to levy fees
on the purchase and transfer of firearms.

An amended complaint was filed on 2/9/12. The defendants answered the amended
complaint on 3/8/12. Discovery is to be completed by 6/27/13. Dispositive motions
must be filed by 8/16/2013. A jury trial is scheduled for 1/28/14.

Challenging prohibition on firearm ranges and
requirement that residents complete an hour
of range training in order to receive a city
firearms permit

On 7/6/11, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court order denying the plaintiffs’
motion for preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court. On
9/29/11, the district court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case
as moot, and on 10/26/11, it denied the plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin enforcement of the
City’s new ordinance regulating firing ranges. The defendant filed an answer to the
plaintiffs’ amended complaint on 11/16/11. Dispositive motions are due by 12/13/12.
Responses are due by 1/14/13. Replies are due by 1/28/13.

On 10/4/11, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that the
District of Columbia’s prohibition against assault weapons and large capacity magazines
is constitutional and that District law requiring basic registration of handguns is
constitutional. The circuit court vacated the district court’s judgment upholding the
constitutionality of District law requiring the basic registration of long guns and
additional registration-related requirements for all firearms, remanding the case back to
the district court for further proceedings. On 7/31/12, following the District’s passage of
new firearms legislation, which addressed numerous requirements that the plaintiffs
were previously challenging, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

Challenging ordinance adopted following the
McDonald decision, including provisions
prohibiting the sale of firearms, the carrying
of firearms outside of the home, the
registration of unsafe handguns, and the
possession of more than one operable
firearm, and provisions establishing firearm
training and minimum age requirements

Plaintiffs and defendants have both filed motions for summary judgment, and briefing on
the motions is almost complete. On 5/24/12, the court denied the defendants' motion
requesting that briefing on the motion for summary judgment be stayed pending
Seventh Circuit decisions in Shepard v. Madigan and Moore v. Madigan, which the
plaintiffs opposed.

New York, NY

Challenging New York City’s handgun
licensing scheme, which requires payment of
a $340 fee for issuance or renewal of a 3-year
"Residence Premises" handgun license

On 3/26/12, the district court granted the defendants’ and Intervenor’s cross-motions
for summary judgment, finding that the licensing fee does not violate the Second
Amendment. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit where the
plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief on 6/29/12. The Intervenor NY AG's
response brief is due by 9/28/12.

United States
and Virginia

Challenging federal law prohibiting the
transfer or receipt of firearms acquired
outside of one’s state of residence except
through a federally licensed dealer. Also
challenging District law requiring that all
firearms brought into the District be
registered with the assistance of a federally
licensed in-District dealer.

Following a district court order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction
and dismissing the action, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit. The
District of Columbia has been dismissed from the case pursuant to the consent of both
parties. Appellate court briefing is complete, and oral arguments are tentatively
scheduled to take place between 10/23/12 and 10/26/12.

State of
Illinois

Challenging state requirement for Firearm
Owner Identification Card in order to possess
a firearm (challenge brought by non-resident
seeking to possess a firearm while staying in
an Illinois home)

Following a district court order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss on 11/22/10,
the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on 10/3/11. Briefing on the
motions is complete, and a decision is pending.

Chicago, IL

Challenging ordinance adopted following the
McDonald decision, including all of the
provisions at issue in Benson and numerous
additional provisions

Following the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Ezell and Chicago’s amendment of
several firearms laws, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on 9/9/11. On
11/4/11, the defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. Briefing on the motion is complete.

Challenging local ordinances requiring
handgun registration, prohibiting the sale of
more than one handgun within a 30-day
period, requiring 72-hour waiting period for
completion of sale, prohibiting the purchase
of a firearm by a person who has received
voluntary mental health treatment or has
pending criminal charges, and prohibiting
carrying of a firearm without a license (or
carrying in certain areas)

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is awaiting a ruling by the court. As
directed by a court order dated 7/1/11, the parties filed supplemental briefs on the
applicability of the Pullman Doctrine in order to determine whether an unsettled
question of state law could dispose of the case. The case has been stayed since 5/19/11,
with the exception of briefing on Pullman Abstention, pending a decision on the motion
to dismiss.

State of
Hawaii; City
and County
of Honolulu

Challenging state restrictions on transporting
and carrying firearms without a license and
alleging that state law vesting licensing
authorities with “sole and absolute
discretion” to deny licenses violates the
Second Amendment

At a hearing on 3/21/12, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
injunction, granted the state defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and
granted in part and denied in part the Honolulu defendants’ motion to dismiss. The
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on 6/3/12, and appellate court briefing is complete.

Los Angeles,
CA

Challenging the denial of plaintiff’s
application for concealed handgun license

On 1/13/12, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit, where plaintiffsappellants filed their opening brief on 5/26/12. On 7/17/12, the appellate court denied
the appellant's motion to consolidate the case with Thomson v. Torrance Police Dept.
Following an extension, the defendants-appellees' answering brief is due by 10/1/12,
and appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.

Following a hearing on 11/18/11, the district court denied the defendants’ motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint. The defendants filed an answer on 12/9/11.
Dispositive motions are due by 9/28/12.

County of
Wayne, MI;
City of Harper
Woods, MI

Challenging a Michigan law that prohibits the
carrying of a concealed firearm in a motor
vehicle without a license

The complaint was filed on 4/3/12. The plaintiffs filed their answer on 8/31/12.

Carrying of Firearms

Baker v. Kealoha
No. 12-16258

Birdt v. Beck
No. 12-55115
No. 10-8377

Bonidy v. United
States Postal Service
No. 10-2408

Campbell v. Worthy
No. 12-11496

3

GeorgiaCarry.org v.
Georgia
No. 11-10387

Upson
County, GA;
State of
Georgia

Challenging a state law prohibiting the
possession of firearms in places of worship

On 1/26/11, the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit a district court order granting
the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On 7/20/12, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the
law does not burden the Second Amendment and affirmed the district court judgment.

Hightower v. City of
Boston
No. 11-2281
No. 08-11955

Boston, MA;
State of
Boston (As
intervener)

Challenging revocation of plaintiff’s license,
which entitled her to possess firearms and
carry concealed guns in public places

On 9/29/11, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and
granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the First Circuit on 11/2/11. Following oral arguments on 6/6/12, the First
Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on
8/30/12.

Jackson v. King
No. 12-00421

State of New
Mexico

Challenging a New Mexico law that restricts
the issuance of permits to carry concealed
firearms to United States citizens

The complaint was filed on 4/21/12. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, and briefing on the motion is complete.

San Jose, CA;
Santa Clara
County, CA;
State of
California

Challenging state law prohibiting the carrying
of a concealed weapon without a permit and
state law vesting discretion in issuing permits
with local law enforcement

The case had been stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Nordyke. There
has been no change since the en banc court issued its decision in Nordyke in June.

Westchester
County, NY;
State of New
York

Challenging state law requiring showing of
good cause for issuance of concealed carry
permit

On 9/2/11, the district court denied both the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the
plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross-motion for
summary judgment. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit on
9/7/11, and the defendants filed a cross-appeal on denial of their motion to dismiss. In
the meantime, on 6/6/12, the parties submitted supplemental briefing on the impact of
the Second Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Decastro. Briefing is complete,
and oral arguments took place on 8/22/12.

Sacramento
County, CA;
State of
California

Challenging the denial of plaintiff’s
application for concealed handgun license by
County sheriff

The case was argued before the Ninth Circuit on 6/11/09, and the appeal was withdrawn
from submission pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Nordyke v. King. On 7/20/12, the
Ninth Circuit directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the impact of
Nordyke v. King and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

State of
Illinois

Challenging law prohibiting the carrying of
handguns (either openly or concealed) in
public places

On 2/3/12, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction and dismissed
the suit. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the 7th Circuit, where briefing is
complete. Oral arguments took place on 6/8/12, on the same day as and before the
same panel that heard arguments in Moore v. Madigan. A decision is pending.

Challenging laws prohibiting the open or
concealed carrying of handguns

Summary judgment motions were argued before the district court on 1/22/10, and a
decision has been taken under advisement. On 5/24/12, the defendants filed a
supplemental memo in support of its motion for summary judgment, in response to
which the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the supplemental memo. Oral arguments are
scheduled to take place on 10/1/12.

San Diego, CA

Challenging sheriff’s denial of an application
for a license to carry a concealed weapon and
the licensing requirements of good cause and
of a duration of residency within a jurisdiction

The case is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit following a district court order
granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The matter has been fully
briefed, and a decision is pending. On 12/20/11, the court issued an order staying
proceedings pending an en banc decision in Nordyke. On 6/25/12, the court granted the
appellant's motion requesting relief from stay.

Denver, CO;
State of
Colorado

Challenging residency requirement for the
issuance of a concealed carry permit

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth Circuit on 4/8/11 following a district court
order that awarded summary judgment to the Intervenor Attorney General and denied
the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The matter has been fully briefed, and oral
arguments were held on 11/17/11. Continued oral arguments took place on 3/19/12,
with time specifically allotted to the amici. A decision is pending.

Morris,
Passaic, and
Bergen
Counties,
Hammonton,
and
Montville, NJ;
State of New
Jersey

Challenging state laws establishing
discretionary concealed handgun permitting
system and requiring a showing of “justifiable
need” or “urgent necessity” for a permit’s
issuance

On 1/12/12, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit, and
the plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Third Circuit. Appellate court briefing is
complete, and a decision is pending.

San
Francisco, CA;
State of
California

Challenging state law granting local law
enforcement discretion in the issuance of
licenses to carry concealed weapons and
ordinances requiring safe storage of
handguns, prohibiting the discharge of
firearms, and prohibiting the sale of certain
ammunition that “serves no sporting
purpose” or is designed to expand or
fragment upon impact

Following the close of Discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
Briefing is ongoing, and a hearing on the motions is scheduled took place on 8/30/12.

5

State of
Missouri; St.
Charles
County, MO.

Challenging a Missouri law that restricts the
issuance of concealed carry permits to U.S.
citizens

Los Angeles
County, CA

Challenging the Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department’s application of the “good cause”
requirement for a CCW permit under
California law.

On 8/13/12, the district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiffs immediately appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, and on 8/20/12,
they filed their opening appellate brief.

Richards v. Prieto
No. 11-16255

Yolo County,
CA

Challenging the denial of plaintiffs’
applications for concealed handgun licenses
by County sheriff

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit following a district court order
denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting the defendants’
motion for summary judgment. The matter has been briefed in full, and a decision is
pending. On 12/20/11, the court stayed the case pending an en banc decision in
Nordyke. On 6/19/12 the court granted the appellants' motion requesting relief from the
stay, and on 6/29/12 the court stated that Richards and Peruta would be heard before
the same panel "if practicable," as appellants had requested.

Rothery v.
Sacramento
No. 09-16852

Sacramento
County, CA;
State of
California

Challenging the denial of plaintiff’s
application for concealed handgun license by
County sheriff

A district court order denying plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss has been appealed to the
Ninth Circuit, where the plaintiffs-appellants have filed their opening brief. The matter is
presently stayed pending a decision in Mehl v. Blanas.

Challenging laws prohibiting the carrying of
handguns (either openly or concealed) in
public places

On 3/30/12, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action,
finding that the laws do not violate the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs appealed the
decision to the Seventh Circuit, where briefing is complete. Oral arguments took place on
6/8/12, on the same day as and before the same panel that heard arguments in Moore v.
Madigan. A decision is pending.

Challenging the Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department’s and City of Torrance, CA's
Police Department’s applications of the “good
cause” requirement for a CCW permit under
California law.

On 7/2/12, the district court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. On 7/3/12, the plaintiff
appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, where the appellant filed his opening brief on
7/5/12. On 7/17/12, the appellate court denied the appellant's motion to consolidate
the case with Birdt v. Beck. The appellees' response briefs are due by 1/9/13, and the
appellant's optional rely brief is due 14 days after service of the appellees' briefs. On
8/25/12, the plaintiff filed a request to consolidate and expedite the case with Birdt and
Raulinaitis. A decision on the motion is pending.

Plastino v. Koster
No. 12-01316

Raulinaitis v. Los
Angeles County
Sheriff's Dept.
No. 11-08026

Shepard v. Madigan
No. 12-1788

Thomson v. Torrance
Police Dept.
No. 12-56236;
No. 11-06154

State of
Illinois

City of
Torrance, CA;
Los Angeles
County

The complaint was filed on 7/23/12..

6

Woollard v. Gallagher
(f/k/a Woollard v.
Sheridan)
No. 12-1437

State of
Maryland

On 3/5/12, the court filed an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment
and denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On 3/30/12, the court
granted the defendants’ motion for clarification or amendment of judgment and
requested additional briefing on the defendants’ motion to stay enforcement of the
3/5/12 order pending appeal. On 4/2/12, the defendants appealed the court’s orders
dated 3/5/12 and 3/30/12 to the Fourth Circuit, where the appellants filed their opening
brief on 6/21/12. On 7/23/12, the district court denied the defendant's motion to stay
its order enjoining enforcement of the good and substantial reason requirement pending
appeal based upon a finding that the plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals would be
harmed by continued enforcement of the law, whereas the defendants would not suffer
irreparable injury. However, on 8/1/12, the Fourth Circuit granted the defendants’
motion to stay enforcement of the order pending appeal. The appellees filed their
response brief on 7/30/12, and the appellants filed their reply brief on 8/22/12. Oral
arguments in the case are scheduled to take place on 10/24/12.

Challenging state law requiring the
demonstration of cause prior to the issuance
of a concealed carry permit

Safe Storage/Discharge of Firearms

Jackson v. City and
County of San
Francisco
No. 09-2143

San
Francisco, CA

Challenging ordinances requiring safe storage
of handguns, prohibiting the discharge of
firearms, and prohibiting the sale of certain
ammunition that “serves no sporting
purpose” or is designed to expand or
fragment upon impact

On 9/27/11, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing and
granted leave to amend the moot standing claim. The plaintiffs declined to file an
amended complaint, and the defendants filed an answer on 10/17/11. On 12/21/11, the
court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defendants’ defenses relating to standing
and ripeness. On 8/30/12, after the court had denied the plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. All pretrial
motions must be filed and served no later than 12/13/12.

State of
California

Challenging state law that requires a firearm
purchaser to wait ten days before receiving a
newly-acquired firearm

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on 2/24/12, which the defendants answered
on 3/15/12. Non-dispositive motions must be filed by 9/25/13; dispositive motions must
be filed by 10/30/13; and a pretrial conference is scheduled to take place on 1/29/14.

Challenging law prohibiting possession of unregistered
assault weapons on the grounds that the definition of
“assault weapons” in unconstitutionally vague

On 10/21/11, the court granted defendant City of Pleasanton’s consolidated
motion to dismiss the complaint in Richards v. Harris “I” (No. 11-2493) and
Haynie v. Harris (No. 10-1255), holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing
to sue and that their claims were not ripe for review. The plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on 11/4/11. On 12/21/11, the district court
ordered that a third case, Richards v. Harris “II” (No. 11-05580), be related to
the other Harris cases. On 3/1/12, the court granted the parties’ joint motion
to relate a fourth case, Plog-Horowitz v. Harris (No. 12-0452) to the Harris
cases.

The defendants in Richard v. Harris “I” (No. 11-2493) and Haynie v. Harris (No.
10-1255) filed a motion to dismiss two counts of the complaint on 12/23/11.
On 7/30/12, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’
motion to dismiss but is allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

Nassau County,
NY

Challenging state law prohibiting the possession of
nunchaku (wooden stick weapon)

The matter was vacated and remanded to the district court following
McDonald. Plaintiff has filed, and defendant has answered, a second amended
complaint. Discovery is ongoing.

State of
California

Challenging law prohibiting the sale of any unsafe
handgun (any handgun not included on a state roster of
handguns meeting certain safety requirements)

After the parties filed a joint status report on 7/30/12, the court issued an
order lifting the stay that had been in place pending the Ninth Circuit’s en banc
decision in Nordyke v. King. The parties have agreed to withdraw any motions
that were pending at the time of the stay. A status conference took place on
8/30/12.

Challenging law prohibiting possession of unregistered
assault weapons on the grounds that the definition of
“assault weapons” in unconstitutionally vague

The complaint was filed on 5/20/11. For additional information, see
consolidated case Haynie v. Harris, above.

State of
California;
Sonoma
County, CA
Sheriff’s Office

Challenging law prohibiting possession of unregistered
assault weapons on the grounds that the definition of
“assault weapons” in unconstitutionally vague

The complaint was filed on 11/17/11. For additional information, see Haynie v.
Harris, above.

State of
California, City
of Cotati, CA

Challenging law prohibiting possession of unregistered
assault weapons on the grounds that the definition of
“assault weapons” in unconstitutionally vague

The complaint was filed on 1/27/12. For additional information, see Haynie v.
Harris, above.

Challenging ordinance prohibiting the possession or
sale of any assault weapon or large capacity magazine

On 5/25/11, the Supreme Court of Illinois announced that it would hear an
appeal of the appellate court decision affirming the trial court’s dismissal of
suit. Plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief in the Supreme Court on
7/29/11, and the defendants-appellees filed their response brief on 11/18/11.
Oral arguments took place on 1/18/12, and on 4/5/12 the Illinois Supreme
Court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection
claims, but reversed and remanded dismissal of the Second Amendment claim.
The case is now back in the trial court, where the parties are presenting
evidence as to whether the ordinance meets intermediate scrutiny.

Challenging plaintiff's inability to purchase and receive
firearms under federal law due to his lack of residence
within any state (as a United States citizen who resides
in Canada)

Following the district court’s dismissal of suit for lack of standing, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit. On 4/15/11, the D.C. Circuit
reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further
proceedings. In the district court, the plaintiffs have filed a motion for
summary judgment, and the defendants have filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Briefing on the
motions is ongoing. A hearing on the motions for summary judgment is
scheduled to take place on 9/10/12.

United States

Challenging federal law imposing a lifetime ban on
handgun acquisition and possession for domestic
violence misdemeanants, alleging that it conflicts with a
California law that imposes a ten-year ban on firearm
acquisition and possession by domestic violence
misdemeanants.

On 2/28/12, the federal district court granted the defendants’ motion to
dismiss the suit, holding that the law does not violate the Second
Amendment. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
The appellants filed their opening brief on 7/9/12; the appellees filed their
answering brief on 9/7/12; and the appellants' reply brief is due 14 days
after service of the answering brief.

Challenging Honolulu law enforcement officers’ exercise
of discretion in denying state licenses to purchase
firearms.

On 4/19/12, following a hearing, the judge granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part the
plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. Among the claims the judge is allowing to
proceed is the plaintiff’s Second Amendment claim against the defendants.
On 6/29/12, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
injunction based in part upon a finding that the plaintiff is likely to succeed
on the merits of his Second Amendment claim. On 7/27/12, the defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration of the 6/29/12 order, and on 7/30/12 they
filed an answer.

Challenging state law requiring an individual to be 21
years old (or above the age of 18 with military service) in
order to acquire a concealed carry permit

On 1/19/12, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment and denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding
that the Second Amendment does not extend outside of the home. The
plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The opening brief
of the plaintiffs-appellants was filed on 3/21/12, and the defendantsappellees' filed their answering brief on 5/23/12.

Challenging the federal law requiring that a person be 21
in order to purchase a handgun

On 10/4/11, following a district court order granting the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth
Circuit. Briefing is complete, and oral arguments took place on 7/10/12.

United States

Challenging plaintiff's inability to purchase a firearm due
to a misdemeanor assault conviction. (It appears that
the conviction is being treated as a disqualifying offense
in the federal NICS background check system because
the underlying law did not provide a maximum sentence
length.)

On 12/23/11, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss
and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs
immediately appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit. Appellate court
briefing is complete. Oral arguments are scheduled to take place on
10/10/12.

United States;
State of
Michigan

Challenging federal law prohibiting firearm possession
by anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a
mental institution, and challenging policies of the U.S.
government and State of Michigan preventing
individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a
mental institution from regaining their firearm rights.

The complaint was filed on 5/21/12. The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss and an answer on 8/27/12.

United States

Challenging ATF regulations that classify medical
marijuana card holders as unlawful users or addicts of a
controlled substance. The complaint alleges that the
classification prohibits sales of firearms to anyone
holding a medical marijuana card under federal law and
prohibits medical marijuana card holders from
possessing firearms under federal law.

The complaint was filed on 10/18/11. On 2/7/12, the court granted the
parties’ request to dismiss the individual defendants from the suit.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary
judgment, and a decision are pending.

Challenging lease provision prohibiting possession of
firearms in public housing

On 7/27/12, the court granted the defendantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; motion for summary
judgment, holding that the challenged lease provision withstands
intermediate scrutiny. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Third
Circuit 8/27/12.

State of Idaho

Challenging state university housing agreement
prohibiting the possession of firearms and ammunition
in student housing

On 12/7/11, the trial judge granted the defendantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; motion for summary
judgment, upholding the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s policy prohibiting guns in universityowned housing. On 1/10/12, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Idaho Supreme Court.

Warren County,
Illinois

Challenging lease provisions that restrict the possession
of firearms in public housing units administered by the
Warren County Housing Authority

The complaint was filed on 4/3/12, and the defendants answered the
complaint on 5/29/12. Dispositive motions must be filed by 7/2/13, and a
pretrial conference is scheduled to take place on 10/9/13.

State of
California; City of
San Francisco;
City of Oakland,
CA

Challenging the San Francisco Police Department's and
Oakland Police Department's interpretations of CA law
governing the return of seized firearms

The parties have agreed to allow the case to proceed before a magistrate
judge. On 8/30/12, after the parties filed a stipulation resolving the case
against the City of Oakland, the state defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Briefing on the motion is ongoing.

County of
Alameda, CA

Challenging County laws that prohibit the operation of
any gun store within 500 feet of any school, liquor store,
or restaurant.

The complaint was filed on 6/25/12. A case management conference is
scheduled to take place on 11/2/12.